Arizona silver belt., 1887-09-03
DOUBLE TAXATION.

vent debts, is so much discussed in
 private, in publrc and through the
 press, any light which can be thrown on this important subject must be well come and conducive to a just and equitable tax system. It seems, that the diversity of opinions on this mat ter arises chiefly from confused ideas about the real character and meaning of mortgage, of what constitutes a solvent debt, and the mutual relations
 between the two.
 A mortgage is simply conditional conveyance of property, subject to the right of redemption, the condition be- ing, that if the mortgager pays to the mortgagee a fixed sum at stipulated tune, then that conveyance shall be void. If on the other hand the debt for which the mortgage was given, as a pledge, is not paid, it clothes the creditor with the authority to have the pledge sold, and to reimburse himself for his debt, interest and expenses.
 Solvent debts are, as I under stand 1t, debts which the debtor has visrble means to discharge. To say "solvent debts secured by mortgage is paradoxical inasmuch as all debts se- cured by mortgage are solvent per SC. In the former code of laws, the diStinc- ton is plainly made between solvent debts and debts secured by mortgage.
 For the purpose of defining equita- ble and uniform taxation, especially when the system of taxing objects is in use by State, it is necessary to di- vide the character of mortgages in their bearing to taxation, into two categories. Either, the mortgage is the security for pledge to pay for a purchased property, Tn lieu of cash value or value in trade; in that case the debtor alone has on his hands a taxable property, while no other value has been created by the paper-prom- ise to pay. And inasmuch as the pres ent code provides that the possessor of the property, whether pledged or not, shall list and assess his property to its entire value, 1t follows very clearly, that the other party, the cred itor or mortgagee, has no other value for the lost property, now in the debt ors hands, than paper promising payment-at some time in the future. Until then, he has nothing in hand for his sold property. Neither does the present code contemplate, that both, mortgager (the present possessor) and the mortgagee (the man with prom ise on paper) shall be taxed, at the same time and for the same equiva- lent. Section 264O says plainly that property under mortgage or lease sball be listed and taxed to the mort gager (the possessor) unless it be list ed by the mortgagee or lessee. This makes it optional on the part of both, which one is to pay taxes, but clearly does not ask that both shall pay.
 But mortgage may be given for separate value received from a second party. If A loans money to B, and takes B's note and mortgage on some of his property, then we have two tax able values, namely, the property of B, now mortgaged to A, and the value in the hands of A, now loaned to B. In that case, both, the property of B, mortgaged, and the money or goods of A, now in the shape of a note, secured by mortgage may be taxable. This case gives us a debt, secured by mort gage, so far as relating to our tax sys- tenn.
 If it were not for just this distinc- tion between a debt, secured by mort gage, created by an independent value, outside the mortgaged property, sup posed to be a loan or in some other shape, and moatgage given simply in lieu of cash purchase, the reply of the Attorney-General. that "mortga- ges are not taxable, but debts (or sol vent debts) secured by mortgage are, " would be genuine absurdity Tn itself, since, iu the abstract, a mortgage can not be thought of unless in connection with an existing debt. It is not my intention to discuss the propriety of taxing mortgages given for separate value received, not for part payment of taxed property, and upon which there exist great diversity of opin- ion; but deslre to- analyze, what the revenue law must clearly mean when speaking of mortgages and solvent debts, or debts secured by mortgage, in the face of its very first laid-down principle, that nothing in this act shall be construed, to require or per init double taxation" CITIZEN.
 The Commissioner of Indian Affairs has interpreted the Indian Severalty